I'm not huge into hockey, how well do these crazy long contracts work out normally? That would take him to age 41, a lot of that contract being after his prime. Not that I don't want him of course, just wondering.

I'm not huge into hockey, how well do these crazy long contracts work out normally? That would take him to age 41, a lot of that contract being after his prime. Not that I don't want him of course, just wondering.

Depends on the team.

If you're Philly, you just trade them away not long into it.

If you're the Islanders, you just ****** yourself for at least a decade.

If you're Detroit, you just hope their ankles hold up for at least half of it. It also helps you to manage your cap to a point where more lifetime contracts (see: this offseason's rumors) are possible.

Chicago ended up winning the Cup the year after huge deals for Hossa (FA) and Keith (homegrown) and they're just now exiting the grace period, so who cares!

Washington still has two of the most talented players in the world under contract for a decade, but who really knows how that's going to work out.

Those are all teams that have gone the 10+ year route on multiple occasions. The Devils and Canucks have both made the Finals since signing Kovalchuk and Luongo, respectively, but Luongo's situation has clearly deteriorated. Lecavalier hasn't had more than 30 goals or 70 points in a year since his 11-year contract, suffering a number of nagging injuries over that time. Buffalo probably isn't sure why Christian Ehrhoff is here for ten years.

There are no guarantees, really. Depth is ultimately most important. Using a long contract helped get Hossa within the cap for a deep Blackhawks team when they won. I suppose that has been the most successful instance, to this point (not counting the Kings trading for Carter/Richards and their contracts), and even now Hossa has a concussion history entering his mid-30s with 9 years left on his deal.

I personally think Boston was the best built team I have seen in a long time when they won the Cup. They never really employed the lifetime contract, though they did sign both Savard and Chara into their 40s.

There is no easy answer to this one. But it's probably best to not give them to less-than-top quality players like DiPeitro, Ehrhoff, and Franzen.

Franzen's isn't overly regrettable. It's a long deal, but he's only making $4 million per year. Most guys on these decade deals are making 1-2 million more than that.

I feel the same way about Ehrhoff. He has a hit of 4 mil and was by far our best defenseman, but the big deals just seem wrong for them. Franzen's play of late is not something I would want under contract for the better part of a decade. You see more of him than I do, though.

I feel the same way about Ehrhoff. He has a hit of 4 mil and was by far our best defenseman, but the big deals just seem wrong for them. Franzen's play of late is not something I would want under contract for the better part of a decade. You see more of him than I do, though.

No, I was disappointed in him this year. He's way too streaky. But it was one year. He's been fine.

You gotta recall that he was deemed a must-sign basically because he owned the playoffs from 2007 to 2009. Scored at an absurd rate.

I want Filip Forsberg. Galchenyuk would be nice too. (I'm rightfully assuming Yakupov is gone by the 3rd pick). I really like Murray and Reilly, but with Beaulieu and Tinordi in the system, I'd rather we take a forward.